Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Application of a rating system to state clean indoor air laws (USA)
  1. J F Chriqui1,
  2. M Frosh1,
  3. R C Brownson2,
  4. D M Shelton3,*,
  5. R C Sciandra4,
  6. R Hobart5,,
  7. P H Fisher6,
  8. R el Arculli7,,
  9. M H Alciati8
  1. 1The MayaTech Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Department of Community Health and Prevention Research Center, School of Public Health, St Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  3. 3Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  4. 4Center for Tobacco-Free New York, Loudonville, New York, USA
  5. 5Alpine, Texas, USA
  6. 6Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington DC, USA
  7. 7National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  8. 8Management Solutions for Health, Reston, Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 Jamie F Chriqui, The MayaTech Corporation, 8737 Colesville Road, 7th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3921, USA;


Objective: To develop and implement a system for rating state clean indoor air laws.

Design: The public health interest of state clean indoor air laws is to limit non-smoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Current estimates of health risks and methods available for controlling ETS provided a framework for devising a ratings scale. An advisory committee applied this scale to each of seven site specific smoking restrictions and two enforcement related items. For each item, a target score of +4 was identified. The nine items were then combined to produce a summary score for each state. A state that achieved the target across all nine items would receive a summary score of 36 points and be eligible to receive an additional 6 points for exceeding the target on six of the nine items, resulting in a maximum summary score of 42 points. Individual scores were also adjusted to reflect state level preemption measures. Each state's law was evaluated annually from 1993 through 1999.

Setting: USA.

Main outcome measure: A summary score measuring the extensiveness of the state's clean indoor air law.

Results: State laws restricting smoking in the seven individual locations of interest were relatively weak. The overall mean score across the location restrictions ranged from 0.72 in 1993 to 0.98 in 1999. Mean scores were higher for the enforcement items than for the location restrictions. Summary scores ranged from 0 to 20 in 1993 and 0 to 31 in 1994 through 1999. Average summary scores ranged from 8.71 in 1993 to 10.98 in 1999. By the end of 1999, scores increased for 22 states; however, between 1995 and 1997 there were no changes in the summary scores. Three states scored zero points across all years. From 1993 through 1999, there was a 41% increase in the number of states that had in place state level preemption measures.

Conclusion: The number of newly enacted state clean indoor air laws has remained relatively stagnant since 1995. With a few exceptions, as of the end of 1999, progress in enacting state laws to meet specified public health targets for reducing exposure to ETS was relatively low. Thus, state laws in the USA provide, on average, only minimal protection in specified areas and, given the increase in preemption, are increasingly undermining those passed in localities.

  • rating
  • clean indoor air laws
  • ASSIST, American Stop Smoking Intervention Study, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency
  • ETS, environmental tobacco smoke
  • NCI, National Cancer Institute
  • NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
  • SCLD, State Cancer Legislative Database

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • * A copy of the decision rules for developing the clean indoor air ratingsis available from the corresponding author.

  • * The contributions herein of Dana Shelton are hers as an author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions, official policy, or position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS. Ms Shelton's contributions were done principally while in the Office on Smoking and Health at the CDC.

  • The contributions herein of Robin Hobart were done principally while at the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.

  • The contributions herein of Regina el Arculli are hers as an author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions, official policy, or position of the National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS.